position it had. that meant putting american trainers, working with troops from uganda, burundi, eventually kenya, advising other countries that were willing to put in assets. it took money, took time, what if we recognize the new somaly government which could never have been possible out -- without the support, the u.n. was strongly behind it, we got other nations to invest. what we're looking at in west africa is to try to help support an african a.u. supported troop combination from a number of countries to really take the lead against the terrorists in northern mali.

. this is hard. if the united states comes in and does something on her own, nobody can match us in military assets and prowess, but a lot of the challenges we face are not immediately or sustainbly solved by military action alone, therefore, we have to get countries in the region to increase their border security and increase their counterterrorist efforts inside their own boards. we have a lot to do now in west africa. so i think you're right to point out, the united states has to play a role, but it needs to be part of a multi lateral effort in order to have a chance at success. >> thank you, madam secretary. we have discussed many important issues. i remain concerned about whether the accountability review board

captured the full picture of what happened, but i think we can agree to work together moving ahead to improve security in a number of different areas. this hearing now stands adjourned. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

>> secretary of state clinton wrapping up five hours total testimony ol capitol hill, her last testimony, as secretary of state, addressing the issue of the attack on the u.s. consulate in benghazi. we are opening up our phone lines to find out your thoughts. the numbers are -- >> also look at facebook, we have this morning's hearing, all of the senate foreign relations hearing and the hash tag for those of you on twitter. secretary clinton will be back tomorrow introducing senator

john kerry in his confirmation hearing and we'll tell you about that in just a bit. walter is in baltimore, maryland on our independent line. caller: happy new year, this is my first call of the year and i'm looking to being a continued participant p c-span. i enjoyed secretary clinton's responses to the questions that were thrown at her by the republican -- if i can, clowns, who seem to want to make this a travesty on the american people when it was not a travesty on the american people. it was an attack. and i do believe that she honestly and tried to defend our system of justice by not jumping out off the bridge with a bunch of foolishness.

the terrorist attacks that occurred on september 11 of last year, couldn't have been anticipated by anybody. and we hope as we have taken the flags and ribbons off our cars following september 11, 2001, that we will respectfully try and come together and move on with justice for the world, not just for those four americans that died. but for the entire world. host: let's go to florida, and sharon on our republican line. caller: i was taken aback by the fact that with enough amount of time, we scmmoozing her rather than getting serious answer. i was delighted that some of the republicans asked of her regarding her involvement and her knowledge.

and once again, appalled of the amount of lack of involvement and lack of knowledge and the way she threw it to others without being specific as to who bears responsibility. it made me feel as though the secretary of state and her office is in total disarray and has no responsibility for our people who are in other countries representing on our behalf. and i'm sorry about the gentleman representing the independents. we were attacked on our soil as it stands. and yes, there was serious responsibility there. thank you. host: we'll show you the entire senate foreign relations committee hearing tonight. and that will get under way at 8:00 p.m. eastern. continuing with phone calls. herbert is next on our democrat line from charleston, south

carolina. herbert, make sure you mute your television. caller: it is muted. i'm calling from charleston, south carolina. i'm very proud of secretary clinton. i think the republicans, unless they change their way of doing things, they are going to be a party of absence. secretary clinton and president obama, something that couldn't be avoided. something that wasn't on the radar for them. they have to get over losing two presidential elections and let's come together. the best thing for them to do is to get on with it.

we are a progressive country and we need to be progressive in our thinking. host: do you think the questions by republicans were fair or too tough? caller: especially my representative from south carolina, joe wilson, the man who called the president a liar and the other representatives from south carolina. they want to be stuck in the past and they aren't thinking progressively and that's where this country is headed. host: the new chairman of the committee is ed royce of california. and one of his questions for secretary clinton was why weren't the -- why were the security forces withdrawn from benghazi. and here's what she had to say. >> there's a lot of important questions in that, mr. chairman. and let me begin by saying that i was aware of certain incidents

at our facility and the attack on the british diplomat. i was briefed on steps taken to repair the breach in the perimeter wall after the june bombing. steps taken to reduce off-compound violence. others did not recommend based on those incidents abandonning benghazi in part because over the last years, we have become accustomed in operating in pakistan, in iraq and afghanistan and yemen and elsewhere. and we do, as by necessity, rely on security officials to implement the protocols and procedures necessary to keep our people safe. and as i said in my opening statements, i have a lot of confidence in them, because most of the time they get it right. but i was also engaged -- and think this is what deputy secretary burns was referring

to, in the issues related to the deteriorating threaten virmente, particularly in libya -- there were other places across the region we were also watching -- to try to see what we could do to support the libyan government to improve the overall stability of their country to deal with the many militias. we have many programs and actions that we were working on. i had a number of conversations with leading libyan officials. i went to libya in october of 2011. in fact shortly before the attack on benghazi, we approved libya for substantial funding from a joint state-d.o.d. account, c.t. capabilities and w.m.d. efforts. i want to clarify, there was specific instances and assessments going on primarily by the security officials related to individual posts,

including benghazi. >> secretary clinton before the house foreign relations committee this afternoon, checking twitter and our viewers' response, here's what bill had to say. he said thank you, representative jeff duncan for not wasting any more of our time like kennedy just did. he is talking about the new representative. too much time had already past. thank you jeff duncan asking those tough questions of secretary clinton. ashton says how does she say calm and collected with all of these belligerent. another, jeff duncan doesn't care, his mide is up of. there was a report on benghazi back in december. savannah, georgia, and this is sherry, independent caller.

caller: how are you doing? i have not been a hillary clinton fan, but i am now. and i have been watching all morning and this afternoon and i would vote for her in 2016 in a new york second. what i don't understand and your comment your callers, the majority of them are saying the same thing, the hypocrisy and the arrogance of the republicans who took us into lies and took us into wars where thousands of people were killed. and those actions, i think, have influenced this entire region of the world, which is just like some kind of a nightmare over there. i mean every second.

i mean, who knows. and people that are over there trying to do what they think is best. but the republicans, i mean can we drag them kicking and screaming into the 21st century? it's just astounding to me what i have seen and the rudeness and arrogance of them when they basically told 10, 12 years ago with bush. these people were war criminals what they did. host: we appreciate you watching. deborah is a republican and she is in michigan. caller: thank you very much. my comments were that i thought hillary explained to the best of her ability and i thought she did a very good job. i found it appalling that republican congressmen found it

appropriate to be so hostile. that part of it is very hard to deal with anymore. host: give us a specific example of where you're hearing this hostility in their questioning. caller: when they come out very aggressive, very aggressive. but i did want to say, it's a combination of not just the secretary of state, but a combination of all the departments in the security agencies that did not coordinate, plus the intelligence agency. and i do think her comments that she kept reiterating on forming a new plan and accountability and a deputy to handle all of the incoming, so the appropriate people do get the appropriate information. host: she was asked about the accountability review board and we'll show you that and asked a couple of times and show you one

example in moment. let's get another call from our democrat line. this is birmingham, alabama. >> i just want to comment on a couple of things. caller: and i'm going to quantify my comments saying i'm a retired soldier from the army and a former recruiter. i have gone to the pentagon in support of the secretary of -- i'm sorry, sergeant major of the army in the 1980's so i'm going to say this and quantify by saying, on a security level, i think secretary clinton handled this very well. in the history of the united states, so much information is being demanded, that breaches security for the department of defense and all the other agencies within the military

that i don't think these senators are aware of what they are asking her to divulge. when you say, why wasn't the video available? some information i classified -- is classified to a certain degree that they can't release it immediately. when we have people on foreign soil, our soldiers and marines, their jobs are limited by the act here in the united states and they know they can't go out there and say, hey, you guys are waving these flags, get away or to shoot them. they can't do that. so, to me, naive attitude that the senators who asked those hard questions were asking -- ludicrous. no way they should have been

allowed to give responses immediately or to have firsthand knowledge of what we did or didn't do, because they don't have the clearance to have that information immediately. host: we appreciate your input. representative ros-lehtinen is the former chairman of this house foreign relations committee and she asked about the accountability review board and why secretary of state clinton wasn't questioned by the board. here's the secretary's response. >> congressman, we'll answer all of your questions. let me just comment on two of them, even though my time has run out. first, i was not asked to speak with the accountability review board during their investigation. the specific issues they were looking at regarding the attack on benghazi were handled by security professionals in the department and that's where they are focused. obviously, if they had thought i was relevant or had information that would have helped the

investigation, i would have gladly discussed that with them at their request. secondly, on the personnel, this is another area where i need your help. first, all four individuals have been removed from their jobs. secondly, they have been placed on administrative leave. ambassador pickering and admiral mullen indicated why this is complicated. under federal statutes, unsatisfactory leadership is not grounds for finding a breach of duty. and they did not find that these four individuals breached their duty. i have submitted legislation to this committee and to the senate committee to fix this problem so future ones will not face this situation, because i agree with you, there ought to be given more leeway, but under current law, they were limited. host: secretary clinton before the house foreign affairs

committee. your reaction from the testimony. chesapeake, virginia, pamela, independent line. caller: i'm glad to be on your show. host: glad to have you on. go ahead. caller: i have a couple of comments. regarding the republicans, their aggressiveness towards secretary clinton and their questioning i thought was appropriate for the crimes that were committed. however, on the other side of the aisle, the democrats were too accommodating and skirting the issues of the crime committed. and i think that that shows total bipartisan problems. it shows that there is still a total political posture. i think if you watched from the perspective of the viewer from

television, secretary clinton each time she was questioned by a democrat, smiled and smiled with lots of gleam in her eye towards them. whereas with the republicans questioning, there was not that smile, there was not that pleasure of questioning. and the reason being is because their questions were hard. host: do you think the questions were unfair? caller: no. i do not think they were unfair at all. i think when lives are taken that those questions have to be asked. they have to be answered. and four months down the road expecting to apprehend whoever for whatever reason is a little bit unrealistic. and i think so much time has gone by, i don't think there will be any answers. host: pamela in california. to california, scott in irvine.

you are our last caller. scott on the republican line. caller: hillary spoke of duty. had she ever heard of dereliction of duty when the commander in chief refuses to save americans and refused to send in a rescue team to rescue those seals waiting and begging for help? how is this man still president? watergate brought nixon down because some of his men stole a document from the opposition's campaign room. how is this man still president? there is no accountability. the state department employees still have their jobs. where is the news media? some of these callers don't remember that the news media forced nixon to resign and the republicans want to know why four americans were left loon to die. this is unbelievable.

host: thanks for all your calls. we have the video on our facebook page. and comments continue there, too. secretary clinton will be back before the senate foreign relations committee tomorrow as she introduces john kerry, sursuccessor. if the committee approves, the confirmation hearing gets under way at 10:00 a.m. eastern and live on c-span. and you will see the senate foreign relations committee starting at 8:00 on c-span. and a hearing today from the house armed services committee on alleged sexual conduct at lackland air force base and c-span 3, a news conference with nancy pelosi earlier today on re-introducing the violence against women act. all of that starting at 8:00 on the c-span networks. we'll take you to a briefing with john boehner after the passage of a bill that

temporarily suspends the $16.4 trillion debt ceiling through mid-may. it passed in the house of 285-144. briefing is about 15 minutes. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> good afternoon everyone. with the passage of this bill today, it's pretty clear that we are sending a message to the democrat-controlled senate, it's time to do your job. the principle is pretty simple. no budget, no pay. american families have to do a budget and they understand you can't continue to spend money that you don't have. we're committed to doing a budget on the house side, a budget that will balance over the next 10 years. it's time for the senate and the president to show the american people how they are willing to balance the budget over the next 10 years. >> today's vote was the first step towards trying to resolve

the nation's fiscal crisis in a responsible manner. look forward to working with the white house and the senate to do so. it's interesting to note with after almost four years having passed with an economy that's been struggling, the senate never acted. it took one week in which their paychecks were on the line that now the senate is going to step up and do the right thing. we welcome them to this debate around the budget of the nation and look forward to making sure we can begin to reduce the mountain of debt that is facing our children. >> when you go across the country and talk to individuals, they're always stunned. it has been four years since the senate did a budget. when they stood back and looked the last time they did a budget, the ipad wasn't introduced or chevy volt and no instagram. it's shocking. today, you found a bipartisan vote that is asking for accountability and effectiveness

in government and that's why we are moving it and we welcome the opportunity that the senate joins the debate and actually brings accountability back. >> today, the house acted. the house acted to put washington on a budget and to force a conversation about how we spend money. everyone in america understands that budgets matter. and this budget matters to seniors that depend upon the benefits and depends on middle-class, hard-working taxpayers and it matters to our children and the opportunities they are going to have dependent upon washington living within its means. we acted today. it's time for the senate to act. it's time for the senate to pass ag budget. it's been nearly four years since the senate has even passed a budget. people all across this country understand that you have to have a budget. you have to live within your means and it's time for washington to do likewise. >> today, we did our job and

it's up to harry reid in the senate to do theirs. we passed budget for three years. they have yet to pass the budget. it's time for them to get to work and pass a budget. >> families' budget, local governments' budget, businesses' budget, the federal government ought to have a budget. the senate hasn't passed a budget in four years. that's wrong. we have a fiscal crisis in this country. it's hurting our country and guaranteeing that our children and grandchildren have a diminished future. we can't do that, we can't keep on spending money. we know a debt crisis is coming. not a question of if, but when. pass a budget to fix the problem. the house has acted. we need the senate to join this debate so we can start debating the solutions about how to fix our fiscal crisis instead of debating whether there is a fiscal crisis in the first place. >> i will take a couple of

questions. >> speaker boehner, the next deadline is the sequester. what does the house plan to do on the sequester and have you had any conversations with the president or harry reid so far? >> i have not. the sequester is going to go into effect on march 1, unless there are cuts in reforms that get us on a plan on a balanced budget the next 10 years. it's as simple as that. >> how do you feel this strengthens your hand? senator reid was emphatic in his prays. >> i'm glad the senate is finally decided to act. because, there is no indication that we are going to doal budget until we announced last week that we were going to move this bill that said, pass a budget or no pay. i'm glad they are going to join the debate. it's time for us to get serious about how over the next 10 years, we balance this budget and put america on a

sustainable, fiscal path. >> you have reached various agreements with democrats over this stuff. budget agreements that have the force of law. how does nonbinding resolution get the senate to do that, increase the chances of a bipartisan, bicameral agreement on debt? >> if there is a budget from the senate, budget from the house, now you have competing visions for how we address this problem. out of those competing visions, we are going to find some common ground, i'm hopeful, that puts us on a path to balance the budget over the next 10 years. >> the president has put forth his recommendations on gun legislation. you have said you are going to focus on the debt ceiling, the debt limit and the c.r. do you intend to bring up any of those recommendations? >> i expect our committees will hold hearings and make decisions after they have had their

hearings. thank you all. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> nancy pelosi held a briefing on the effectiveness of the violence against women act. she believes it helps to save lives and called on house republicans to re-authorize it immediately. the bill was up for consideration last year but blocked in the house by republican leadership. this is half an hour. >> good afternoon, everyone. this is a very special occasion for us to come together around a

piece of legislation that strikes to the heart of our families and our country. i'm pleased to be here with democratic whip steny hire, ranking member conyers of the judiciary committee. congresswoman gwen moore, the author of the violence against women act and louise slaughter. congresswoman slaughter was one of the original co-sponsors when we passed the bill way back when originally and to be joined by so many of my colleagues from the house at a time when the house has adjourned and they are still here. this is very important to us. on monday, americans heard our president issue a collarion call to action, to live up to the highest ideals of equality and opportunity to make real the inalienable rights of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

house democrat leaders are here to fulfill that promise to protect the lives and secure the liberty and happiness of america's women and families by re-authorizing and strengthening the violence against women act. for nearly decades, the violence against women act has helped ensure that no victim of domestic violence has to suffer in violence or in the shadows. its passage led by then-senator joe biden, was a watershed moment in our history. in the years since, we have come together in a bipartisan way to re-authorize and expand the reach of this law. now we must do it again. the last congress had the opportunity to take this action. the senate passed a strong bill with a bipartisan vote of 68-31. 68-31. yet house republicans refused to bring the senate's bipartisan bill to the floor, leaving millions without a critical line

of defense against domestic violence. this congress has a chance to correct the mistake without further delay. today with 158 co-sponsors and counting, that's in the house, including every woman democrat in the house, democrats are re-introducing the re-authorization of the violence against women act which would expand protections to lgbt, immigrants and native americans. this has bipartisan support in the senate, including key women senators. it is bipartisan. and time for the house republicans to join suit and join the senate in a bipartisan backing of this measure. failure to enact this bill would deprive women and children of vital protection against abuse and law enforcement of essential tools to combat domestic violence.

we must act now. after two decades of success, the facts are clear. the violence against women act works. it has sived lives and made women and children safer and this year we will build on that history of progress. with that, i'm pleased to yield with the distinguished champion on this issue for many years, in fact decades, steny hoyer. >> thank you very much, leader pelosi, and thank you for your leadership. i'm very pleased to join gwen moore and one of the few males that is standing here with all these wonderful members of congress. who are women. chairman conyers. i'm proud to join and re-introduce the violence against women act in the 113th congress. this is on the premise that although we had an opportunity in the 112th congress and the leader has pointed out, in a bipartisan fashion, the senate

acted, we failed that. but it is never too late to do the right thing. this will give this congress the opportunity to do the right thing and do it in this congress. domestic violence prevention has always been an area where democrats and republicans have worked together. it's disappointing we have not sent a bill to the president's desk to be signed when we could have passed a bipartisan senate bill last year. but democrats will continue to urge the republican house leadership to work with us to pass a bill that protects all victims of domestic violence and does more to prevent those crimes. this is not just a woman's issue . this is not just a man's issue or a children's issue. this is an issue of safety. this is an issue of security. this is an issue of family solidarity and security. this issue transcends any of the

dissdinchingses that are very important, but the common interest we have in passing this bill is overwhelming. as a co-sponsor of the original act in 1994 and as a father of three daughters, a grandfather of two granddaughters and the great-grandfather of a granddaughter -- great-granddaughter -- [laughter] >> i hope to survive in time to vote for this bill. [laughter] >> this bill is therefore personal for me and personal for every american. let get it done without delay. unfortunately, we did pass a bill through the senate. the problem with that bill, it excluded people in the house. we excluded people from its coverage and its protection. i can't believe that there is any house member who's going to get up and say there is somebody who lives in america that i do

not believe ought to be protected from domestic violence. let us hope that's not the case. let's pass this bill. gwen moore, john conyers. madam leader, thank you. and ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much for your leadership, your passion, your courage to get this bill done. thank you very much. >> our distinguished ranking member of the judiciary committee, who has been fighting this fight and leading the charge for decades as well, mr. conyers. >> thank you so much, madam leader, and to our distinguished whip. before our beloved gwen moore got to congress, steny hoyer and i were introducing the violence against women act. it's gone through a number of iterations and we now have the real version improved over in the senate in which hundreds of

groups participated. law enforcement officers, advocates, survivors of this horrible kind of cruelty. and so i am so proud that gwen moore is now with us to get this across the line. i must point out that i am optimistic enough, madam leader, to think that we will get republican support on this bill. and with that spirit, i'm proud to stand with all of you ladies and a couple of guys -- [laughter] >> congresswoman moore. >> just let me say what a privilege it is to be standing here with leader pelosi and democratic whip steny hoyer and onconyers, the ranking member on

the house judiciary committee, and louise slaughter and even donna edwards, who was the first executive director of the national network to end domestic violence, i just want to thank them for being here in 1994 when this was passed, because i was one of the people who was kind of out there getting beat up and sexually assaulted and one of those faceless, nameless women, who really needed advocates and law enforcement and people on the other end of the telephone to be there. and i am so proud to be here today. i am so pleased to say that not only did we have 158 sponsors here in the house, but in the senate, this bill has been re-introduced by senators leahy and crapo who championed this in the senate and they introduced

it along with three republican women senators and others. so i share the optimism that we are going to be able to get this over the line with bipartisan support. this is our call to action to the house g.o.p. leadership to make it crystal clear that we are ready and prepared to make this a priority. the leader has set aside one of her very precious first bill number for the violence against women act to show and to demonstrate that this is our highest priority. we're here on behalf of victims, survivors of abuse and assault. those people who sit there who answer the calls, legal services, people who run shelters, people who see the

children that need help in order to be able to not become batterers or victims themselves. law enforcement, who doesn't know how to re-authorize this. this program, just like every other program, has taken cuts. and we have tried to re-order things and combine things so we can get the efficiencies out of the program. we are trying to put a greater focus on sexual assault. but it doesn't matter if these are quality programs or what the quantity of programs is if everybody doesn't have access to the program. and as the ranking member conyers has said, you know, access is what it's about. as steny hoyer has said, who is it out there that we don't want to serve? i'm so proud to look at my colleagues and to realize that

we have, you know, every race, every creed, every color here. we have representatives of the women's community here to represent every woman in america and we are praying that this is just the beginning of a short journey towards re-authorizing the violence against women act. i'm pleased to be here with louise slaughter. she was the first author of the violence against women act here in the house in 1994. and i'm so pleased to be sharing this podium with her today and would ask her to join us and make a comment. >> thank you so much. [applause] >> first, i want to say it's a lot different here this morning than it was in 1994. first we have the madam leader,

which we are extremely proud and a lot more good women as well as the men who served with us all the way through. in 1994, i have been here a little while but i had good grounding in criminal justice in the new york state legislature in rochester, new york. and domestic violence had been an issue that i knew very little about, but was extremely troubled by. and great former congresswoman, pat schroeder worked on it for a year and a half. and researchers told us that they had found abusers or persons that had been abused in their lives or grown up in a house where abuse was common, we didn't quite recognize that connection there. and i had a young woman when i was working on the bill here in congress, whose father died when she was young and she was

married. this was in the late 1980's, early 1990's and her husband abused her and she didn't know that that wasn't normal. i know that won't sound right to you today with what we all know today and everything we are schooled in, but that was not that uncommon. but we knew we had to break that cycle of violence or we would never be able to deal with this problem. that was the large part of what we wanted to do with the bill. in addition, we spent a lot of time and a lot of years have gone by training law enforcement from the police on the street, to the district attorneys to the judges, bring everybody involved to know how serious this was and the first time we absolutely talked about was that what the police had to do was separate both the abuser and the abused, this wasn't a matter of going to break up the fight and leave it to go on behind closed doors.

this is the greatest steps we have taken in criminal justice and to protect the people who were weak and vulnerable in the household. we have reduced the numbers now. 61%. all of this is working together. and i tell you though, this past election, i met three young women in my district that i never talked to about this before and it's one thing when we talk about the work and research we put into it. 50% and section a, but when you talk to a young woman, she said i left home at 17 and left to colorado and beat me pulp. and your office brought me back and had my face put back together. that is why we are here. that is what happens with the legislation that we passed. that may be what will happen if we don't get this legislation

renewed. we must not wait. it should have never come to this point, ever. if we have to put it on suspension, whatever we have to do, people are waiting out there for us to continue what we have done since 1994 and so we don't see this anymore. so i'm delighted that we are here this morning and i know we are going to get it done. so we will get it done. thank you for letting me be a part of it. >> thank you for your leadership, congresswoman slaughter. gwen moore doesn't take no for an answer. listening to louise reminds me of what was happening, marcy kaptur, rosa delauro, we were working on the appropriations committee and that was the next step. and we ended up having some bipartisan support for that and that was good and there were other issues that related to

testing the income of the abuser for women who needed legal assistance and when they go for legal assistance and would say, you don't qualify because your household income is including the income of the abuser. there were many hurdles and the example of when louise talks about individuals, we learn so much from those. and frankly, for some of us, it was an education that was required because none of us had that experience in our own families, neighborhoods, churches and the rest. maybe it was there, probable it was, but we just didn't know it. but who would do that, hit somebody, but they did. and this bill has to pass. so thank you all very much. >> can i say one more thing, because i want to thank you for this. as far as i'm concerned we have the health care bill because of leader pelosi and up until the time that bill was passed, eight

states and the district of columbia considered demresk violence to be a pre-existing condition, did you know that? and if you had been beaten up before, you could not get insurance because you could get beaten up ago. this was in the last couple of years. thank you again for that. >> we have time for a few questions -- this started later than anticipated because of the floor. >> i have a question on an unrelated topic. >> on this subject, because we have before you, as was mentioned, donna edwards has a long history with many of our colleagues and work in the community and city council and state legislatures. yes, sir. >> do you have any republican sponsors? and if not, why not? >> we hope so. and we are pleased. senator murkowski in the senate

and one more republican -- >> senator ayote. not yet in the house. but we are hopeful. >> we are working on it. >> we're hopeful. we feel positive in an open way and many of the members have said to me, they represent indian country and the rest and know of the abuse going on and they have to support something like this. they support their leadership to encourage them to be more open about -- the senate-passed violence against women act. >> the last bill, i'm wondering how this bill specifically is the same as or different from the senate bill last time, which you have hailed as the model, particularly on two issues. the visas for immigrant women who cooperate with police and

the travel courts' jurisdiction. are those provisions maintained in this, because i think the senate's position is out. so i'm wondering how yours differs. >> in particular, sad but true, there was an expansion of u-visa protections that we were seeking and created a quote, unquote, problem. and in order to take away any excuses for getting the bill called up here in the house, they took out the small receive news that would create the blue slip problem. >> in the senate. >> we did not. we don't want that to be a problem. >> the bill that leahy and crapo

introduced? >> yes. >> thank you. >> you spoke -- it's clear what your position is. senator reid took a different approach up and said he would take the bill up as is. is there disconnect between the house and senate? >> let me just say that the legislation that passed on the floor today, the republicans produced 199 votes. they don't seem to be able to get to 218. our members were told what was wrong with it. there is a booby trap in the bill about -- what is it, pass the budget or don't get paid, whatever it is. many of our members, including mr. hoyer don't think that that should ever be something that is

part of the bill but enabled them to get republican votes and also some democratic votes on our side. but i don't think -- let me say, this will take the process down the road. i think it's the wrong path to go down. i do not think -- i think they are causing another path to a cliff. but we are talking about short-term and the senate and the white house wants to celebrate the disconnect between debt ceiling and for the three-month moment, then fine. i don't think it was a big deal today in terms of whether the house leadership and the senate leadership were in agreement. what the big deal about it, it's the wrong path to go down. what they're saying is, if you want to get paid, let's make sure seniors pay by eliminating the medicare guarantee. you want to get paid, let's make

sure children, people with disabilities and other seniors, long-term health care pay the price. children, investments in their future, their education, their personal fulfillment and aspirations of their families and global competitiveness of america, that will pay a price, too. and our veterans will pay. do you want your pay check, this is the budget that goes with it. i think it's all wrong, but the fact is, the one part that has shall we say some appeal was that it was a recognition that for three months and for today, would be connected to the debt ceiling. i don't know if any of you follow -- what you do at night, but last night i watched the ways and means committee hearing run very late at night. and if you saw that hearing, you

would have heard the testimony of simon johnson from m.i.t., who talked about the fact that we should never be talking about the debt ceiling as to any question whether it would be raised. the mere discussion, as was the case a year and a half ago, lowered our credit rating, lowered our credit rating. i did not find it necessary to dig any file a gimmick that the republicans put on the floor with the booby trap that could exploit at home saying they didn't want to vote against getting paid. i didn't want to dig any file that, it was a gimmick. the problems and challenges are serious. we all know we have to reduce the deficit and committed to spending cuts, we have $1 trillion ourselves in medicare,

in the affordable care act and other actions. we know there has to be revenue, there has to be growth. and what are we talking about, gizmos in a bill, unworthy, beneath the dignity of the issue that is before us, the full faith of the credit of the united states of america. >> have you talked to leader reid about it? >> also on another subject quickly, could you discuss your possible divided loyalties of having been involved -- [laughter] >> oh, my, you better go, madam leader. >> i'm wearing red. that is a 49er color. let me say this and i told it to mr. hoyer when he said he wanted to make a wager. i said i'm rooting for the 49ers and not rooting against

baltimore. my father built baltimore stadium. i'm a baltimore sports fan which is my second team. i'm proud of the ravens. but my constituency is san francisco. my children were raised -- going to games with joe montana and all of the stars, young and everyone since then, and will be supporting and rooting for the 49ers, not rooting against the ravens. i was rooting for both of them to go to the super bowl and then they both did. but only thing i have is har baugh parents must have a more difficult decision to make on that day, but i fully intend to be at the game. thank you all.

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> here's what's ahead on the c-span networks this evening. on c-span, secretary of state clinton testifies before the senate foreign relations committee at 8:00. on c-span 2, house armed services committee hearing on alleged sexual misconduct at lackland air force base. and c-span-3. the briefing you just saw with democratic leader pelosi on the violence against women act. all of that coming up at 8:00 on the c-span networks. tomorrow, senator john kerry and his confirmation hearing before the senate foreign relations committee to be the next secretary of state. he will be introduced by the current secretary of state hillary clinton, set to get under way at 10:00 a.m. eastern.

up next, today's white house briefing with jay carney. just over 50 minutes. >> good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. thank you for being here on day two. [laughter] >> of the second term. i have no announcements to make. so we'll go straight to the associated press. >> secretary clinton on the hill today when asked about the initial administration explanation on benghazi said what difference does it make? does it not make a difference of the benghazi incident or any other incident is accurate? >> here's what secretary of state was saying and the clear point she was making and i have made repeatedly, no one took more seriously the fact that we lost four american lives in benghazi than the president of

the united states and the secretary of state of the united states. and whatever was said, based on information provided by the intelligence community on a series of sunday shows, there is no relevance on the ultimate questions of what happened in benghazi, who was responsible, and what we must do to ensure that it never happens again and that we bring to justice those hole killed our diplomats and other americans. so that is clearly a point that we have been making for a long time. and there has been an obvious political obsession over a series of talking points that again, bears no relevance on the essential issues here, as i just enumerated. the fact is i, ambassador rice and others provided to you and

through you to the american people, the information that we had available at the time. making clear it was preliminary, making it clear it would evolve as investigations continued and more information became available. and nothing about that process in any way changes what happened in benghazi or what needs to be done to prevent a tragedy like that happening again. . . >> one thing that the secretary mentioned is that the al qaeda affiliated group is growing, is a threat to interest notice region and perhaps ultimately the homeland. how account administration continue to say that al qaeda has been decimated when the secretary is saying that al qaeda-affiliated groups are growing? >> they also said, because she was asked specifically the question about whether or not it is true, as many have said, including the president and myself, that al qaeda central has been decimated. there is no question that that

is the case and any intelligence assessment would reinforce that point. i mean, we have taken the fight to al qaeda, both in its core location, afghanistan and pakistan, as well as to those affiliates that represent a threat to the united states and to americans around the world. our vigilance does not end there. and we have been very clear about the threat posed by aqip, aqap and aqim. what is also true is that to this point, aqim has not represented a direct threat to the homeland. but you can tell by our support of the mission that the french have undertaken and by our overall efforts to go after and contain and defeat extremists who would do harm to our interests that we are very serious about this.

>> al qaeda central command has been decimated even as al qaeda-affiliated groups may be growing? >> i think you can square it by stating it clearly which is that secretary of state clinton did and which president clinton has and i have and others. i mean, sorry, president obama, and secretary of state clinton, president obama, secretary carney. [laughter] thank you. >> i thought you weren't going to speculate that. >> was that a lip sync? >> you stole my thunder. i was going to make a lip sync joke later. slaufert >> follow up -- [laughter] . >> follow up. >> on it. the absolute fact is that the president took office four years ago with a very clear objective and that was to refocus our efforts on the war in afghanistan, which was an

essential war because from afghanistan al qaeda had been allowed to establish a safe haven and from that safe haven had launched an attack against the united states that took 3,000 lives. he has been relentless in the pursuit of al qaeda. since he took office. and i think the evidence of that is very clear. including the elimination of osama bin laden. but as the president and secretary clinton and secretary gates and panetta and others, john brennan, have consistently made clear, al qaeda continues to represent a threat, its affiliates in various parts of the region and the world represent a threat and this is something that we are enormously vigilant about. and secretary clinton said as much today. >> the pentagon has cleared

general john and of the allegations of misconduct and does the president now plan to lift that hold that he has put upon the nomination and if so how does he plan to advance it? when does he plan to advance it? >> as he noted the investigation is now complete and general allen's nomination rather to service as the -- serve as the next supreme commander ally of europe will proceed. we hope the senate will consider it in a timely manner. and we will press the senate to do just that. >> when will you talk to the senate? >> i don't have a specific timetable but as you noted, the d.o.d.'s investigation of that matter is now complete and we welcome its findings and therefore we intend for the nomination to proceed. >> the president last week spoke to prime minister david cameron and said, i believe, that he wanted to see a strong u.k. and a strong e.u. so i'm wondering what the white

house makes of the announcement today that there will be a referendum on that issue and what the united states has at stake in the u.k. staying part of the e.u. >> we welcome the prime minister's call for britain to remain in the e.u. and to retain a leading role in europe's institutions and as the president told the prime minister when they spoke last week, the united states values a strong united kingdom and a strong european union. we value our central relationship with the u.k. as well as our relationship with the european union which makes critical contributions to peace, prosperity and security in europe and around the world. we believe that the united kingdom is stronger as a result of its european union's membership and we believe the european union is stronger as a result of having the united kingdom in the e.u. so that's -- our views on this are very clear. the internal process by which these matters are considered within the u.k. or any other

country are obviously the province of those countries and those governments. yes. >> you talk about, with benghazi you talked about the obsession with talking points. are you suggesting that the american people should not care about the fact that they were told one thing and it turned out not to be the case? >> dan, as you know we've discussed this matter repeatedly and i'm happy to do so again. we provided assessments of what happened in benghazi based on information provided by the intelligence community and information that was, as we acknowledged, evolving, based on investigations and more facts that came -- that were coming to light. s that been clear -- it has been clear for a long time now, as we saw during the campaign, that there has been effort under way to make this a political issue

when the fundamental fact here is that four americans were killed, those who are responsible for their deaths must be brought to justice and actions must be taken to ensure that the tragic events of benghazi do not happen again. that is why at the president's direction the secretary of state set up the a.r.b., the accountability review board, which was chaired by two very prominent nonpartisan leaders, admiral mullen and ambassador pickering. and their report was unsparing i think by any account. and its recommendations were accepted in their entirety by the secretary of state and they are being implemented under her leadership. i think that reflects how seriously we take this issue. and how serious the substance of this issue is. what is not serious is the repeated attempts to try to make

this a political matter. because it's not. and the fact of the matter is back at the time we were dealing with a situation that was not just limited to libya and benghazi but where there were -- there was a series of events and unrest around the region and we were providing information to you and to the american public through you that was based on the best assessments at the time and those assessments evolved as more facts became clear. a lot of the allegations about this matter that have been cast forward over the intervening months have proven to be false, as the accountability review board made clear. our interests as an administration, the president's interest is in the fundamental issue of bringing to justice those who were responsible and taking the necessary actions to ensure that the tragedy of benghazi is not repeated.

while, and i paraphrase secretary clinton here, we always acknowledge the fact that the important work our diplomat does around the world has to often take place in risky environments and that they serve our country brafle, just as our men and in uniform -- bravely just as our men and women in uniform do and take risks in order to fulfill their functions. >> it seems when you word the use obsession with talking points, it seems to almost diminish the fact that the facts are there, which is wrong information was given at the time. >> what is it that you or -- you are speaking for? that you believe we are diminishing? the fact of the matter is the facility was attacked, four americans were killed, the president took immediate action to ensure that our diplomats and

diplomatic facilities around the world were reinforced and secured as necessary. that everything that could be done to provide assistance -- that everything be done that could be done to provide assistance. what is at issue here is essentially a phrase about whether or not there was a spontaneous demonstration. which was an early assessment that turned out not to be the case. but the fundamental facts about what happened there and the results of those actions and that attack have not changed. and no question has been brought legitimately or that hasn't been proven untrue about the actions of the administration -- about the actions the administration took to respond appropriatey. so we're talking here about -- appropriately. so we're talking about a series of talking points that were provided to the administration as well as members of congress on capitol hill. that acknowledged within them that this was preliminary information, theanch who spoke on the issue -- that everyone

who spoke on the issue made clear might change. as is often the case here. in situations like this. and that's how we view it. >> did the president watch any of the hearing this morning? >> i don't believe he did. i haven't asked him. >> then one more point on the -- the president had talked about and other administration officials have talked about engaging the public and putting pressure on congress to move the president's agenda forward in his second term. what can we expect from the president? are we going to see a campaign-style effort where he hits the road a lot more to push for this gun policy or immigration? >> the president will travel. you can expect that. he will, as he does, make the case to the american people for the vision he laid out in his inaugural address and the specifics that he will lay out at his state of the union address. on february 12. i think you can fully expect

that his commitment to engaging the american people in these important discussions about our future will continue. he believes very strongly that even when we're talking about seemingly arcane matters of budget policy, things like debt ceilings and spending in the outyears and budget caps and deficit or debt to g.d.p. ratios, that when distilled into common language these are the essential matters that americans care about. because they affect their livelihoods, they affect their capacity to find work and then find higher-paying work. growth of the economy, growth in job creation is essential to the president's vision. it is the core goal that informs everything he does on domestic policy and international policy.

so, he believes that not only is it the right strategy to engage the ic people, it is essential as a reflection of why he's in this to begin with. to explain to them his vision and to listen to them about what their hopes are and the direction that they hope the country will move in. >> [inaudible] >> i have no scheduling announcements to make today but i can assure you he will be hitting the road throughout his second term. >> today marks one of the last times we'll see clinton on the public stage as secretary. we heard her receive a lot of praise from members of the senate this morning for her work in the administration. what do you think her legacy is as secretary of state? >> i think it's -- every member of this administration this team here at white house and more broadly in the national security apparatus would admit as a

starting point i'm biased in saying this but i think she has been and history will show her to have been one of the great secretaries of state. she came in office at a time when we were dealing with a diminished reputation worldwide, where our alliances were frayed, where we were engaged in two wars for which there were nom strategies to end in a way -- there were not strategies to end in a way that were in the interests of unitestates where we had unmet interests in ples le as and e africa, latin america, that we needed to pay attention to and she did extraordinary work in advancing the president's agenda on all those matters and i know the president feels that very strongly. >> [inaudible] >> i think it was yesterday those names were released but i don't have any calls or conversations with the president to read out today.

>> revisiting climate change from yesterday. in talking to environmental groups, democrats on the hill, a reintroduction of the cap and trade bill from 2010. what they really are looking at is the e.p.a. to soon release or formalize its carbon-based pollution regular laces for future power plants -- regulations for future power plants and that they get on the task of putting forward regulatory rules. is this what we can expect the president's emphasis -- [inaudible] to be focused on dealing with climate change here in this country? >> i can certainly confirm that the president intends to continue progress on the international standard for harmful carbonlusion from new power plants. and to implement that stand.

i can't comment on any specific future actions that he might take except that he has demonstrated in his record during his first term that we can together take action that is not only helpful to our environment in that it addresses the issue of climate change is also helpful to our long-term economic vitality by ensuring we make investments in new energy technology and that we develop new storms of energy as well as -- forms of energy as well as traditional forms of energy here at home so we are less dependent on foreign imports of energy. that's a strategy that enhances our national security, improves the environment, addresses climate change and the very important -- and very importantly helps our economy by allowing industries to develop here in the united states, that this if they don't develop here will develop elsewhere. industries that provide good jobs and will be very sustainable in the future. >> those who look at this issue

say dealing with existing power plants would be the best way, most effective way to reduce carbon emissions and advance what the president said in the inaugural. does he agree with that? >> i'm not going to talk about -- >> philosophically. >> philosophically is aned a verb that is somewhat synonymous with speck latively and i will, you know, not speculate on future -- >> [inaudible] inaugural address and those who look at this issue believe you're not going to do something legislatively, this is the most effective way to do it. >> again, i don't have any information to impart about specific future actions the president may or may not take. he is committed to continuing and building on the progress that was made in the first term. in his first term. and will look at a variety of things we can do together as a nation to address this challenge. and to address it in a way that provides the benefits that i talked about, that is not, you know, there's the important goal of dealing with climate change, which is a real issue.

there is the opportunity that actions we take to deal with that challenge, for them to -- for us economically when it comes to clean energy and developing domestic energy, alternatives to the import of foreign energy. >> on social security, was there anything inconsistent with what the president said in the inaugural address with his negotiating posture with speaker boehner, that he would put change c.p.i. on the table? >> the president at the end of the year and the premise of your question i think acknowledges this put forward a very serious proposal to speaker boehner that by any measure met the republicans halfway. that included within it very tough choices with regards to entitlement reform and it demonstrated his good faith in trying to achieve a compromise that would attain that goal that he has espoused for a long time which is an overall package that reduces our deficit by over $4

trillion over a decade and thereby going back to ratios, establishes a ratio of debt to g.d.p., deficit to g.d.p. that is sustainable, putses i on a fiscally sustainable path. he is still committed to that. his approach to this -- these issues has always been that we need to strengthen those programs upon which so many americans depend. social security, medicare, medicaid. and so the reforms that we need to introduce have to strengthen them for the long-term. what we don't need to do is eliminate them as we know them or slash benefits simply to protect the benefits of the wealthiest individuals or corporations. that's not a choice the president believes we have to make. and that's why we have to have balanced deficit reduction and in the name of balanced deficit reduction he put forward the

proposal that unfortunately, even though it was widely recognized to have been made in good faith and to have represented an effort to meet the republicans halfway, the republicans walked away from. which is a shame. >> is is it still on the table? >> absolutely we look forward to working with congress to continue the effort to reduce our deficit in a balanced way. that offer unfortunately the republicans walked away from remains the president's position. it is absolutely essential that as we move forward we continue to build on the $2.5 trillion in deficit reduction this president has already signed into law and with congress brought into effect but we have to do it in a balanced way. and what was true late last year is true today. that the president will not entertain proposals that say, ok, now moving forward all the burden is on seniors. or all the burden is on middle

class families trying to send their kids to college. or families who have disabled children. that's not an approach he will embrace. i think you have heard him say that. what he is willing to do is continue this important work of deficit reduction in a balanced way, including revenues, including spending cuts that helps our economy grow and create jobs. because deficit reduction with the exception of, you know, a few esoteric groups, most of them inside washington, is not a desirable goal unto itself. it is a goal in service of a bigger goal. which is economic growth, stability for the middle class, more and better job creation. >> you inadvertently open the door on sweet 16 by saying president clinton. there's a -- >> let me be clear, i just had a nice, long conversation with president clinton, bill clinton, the other day and he was in my head. >> inadvertent as it was, it's still out there.

[laughter] the vice president intoxicated by the idea of running in 2006. i know you're not going to speculate on that. >> whose words were those? >> "the onion"? >> no. [laughter] [inaudible] i just want to bring this up. not to speculate on this, but do you think there is anything about the vice president running for a second term that can or should be viewed through any sort of prism other than working for the administration or his record so far being evaluated in the context of 2016. as you know it's going to happen. >> i don't doubt it will happen. i think the vice president in an interview addressed this, got this question and addressed it and his focus, and i know this because i do know him and i worked for him and i've spoken to him recently, he is focused on the job of helping this president and helping this administration achieve the goals that the president's put forward.

that is his work. and he is very committed to it. i think you saw it demonstrated most recently in his exceptional effort in a very short period of time to put forward to the president the recommendations on how to reduce gun violence in this country, an effort that he led and that his staff led on the president's behalf. and that's the -- that's the vice president's focus. in his own words. and i think it was, and it is now, and as he said, other considerations for the future, he's focused on his work as vice president, as the president's partner. >> who has a better legacy? the vment or the secretary of state? >> >> the legacy here that we're concerned about is how the american people are situated four years from now compared to how they were four years ago.

how is the middle class faring four years from now compared to where they were four years ago? how is our economy poised four years from now compared to where it was four years ago? is our stature around the globe enhanced four years from now compared to four years ago? are we safer four years from now compared to four years ago? those are issues that are not just about the president's legacy, it's for everybody who serves this president and this administration and this country at this time. and including members of congress and i think that members who just got here this month, freshmen in the house and the senate, i think will have that same measure -- they will look four years from now and say, did what i do in those four years improve the prospects of this country? help the economy grow? help the middle class? make us more secure? or not? and that's how i think the president looks at it and i know that's how secretary of state

looked at it when she -- in her four years that are coming to an end. that's how we all look at it. those kind of assessments i'm sure will be made repeatedly in the future, not just for those two individuals. i think for the sake and sanity of all involved it's worth taking a little bit of a break from the presidential election year politics. >> if i could please clear something up from yesterday. i made a mistake. i asked you a question and said, suggested there was an email the white house sent out picking up individual issues from the inaugural address. i had an email that had white house tweets about individual issues. i was asking you the question about, because you had suggested reporters should not pick it out into individual pieces. i did not mean to imply that the white house had some strategy through email to do that. so i just want to correct that. >> i really appreciate that. i think when i took that question i was a little flum

axed because it was news to me. this administration did not and probably would have not set the 140-character limit to tweets. [laughter] we have to do it in incremeants. >> you did say that the speech would be looked at holistically, not necessarily in 140 characters. that was all. >> thank you. >> i wanted to be clear. on benghazi. secretary clinton testified today that on the night of september 11, 2012, she participated in a secure video conversation with people from the defense department and from the white house which would make sense in any crisis situation. my question is, did the president participate in that? if not, who from the white house participated? >> i know members of the national security team participated. i believe we've been quite open about the president being initially informed of this and being constantly updated on what was happening in benghazi, what

we knew about what was happening. and immediately ordering his secretary of defense to take all necessary action to provide assistance and to ensure that measures were taken to enhance security around our diplomatic facilities in the region and in the world. i would have to take the question. i don't know. >> ok, thank you. she also said that she spoke late that are night to the president. was that the only time they spoke? >> again, i don't know. i'm not sure -- >> senator mccain was asking about the president's role. >> made a huge issue out of what i made clear our view is a nonissue which are the talking points that were provided to senators, members of the house and to members of the administration. the nonclassified talking points. which have no bearing on what happened in benghazi and the immediate reaction of this administration. in response to it.

as secretary clinton made clear today in her testimony or at least her initial round of testimony, and as was made clear in the accountability review board report, there was no delay in response, every asset was brought to bear to try to provide assistance. no requests were denied. a lot of the reporting around this has proven to be wrong. and -- or the speculation around it has proven to be wrong. on the fundamental issues here about what happened, who was responsible, the response and reaction to it and now the investigations that have taken place in our -- and are continuing at the president's direction. so, you know, the purpose in pursuing this line of questioning is unclear to me, beyond an attempt to continue to try to score political points. >> so on the question of what you call speculation and in answer to dan's questions about the talking points, you said you

always made clear it was preliminary information, that's what susan rice did as well. i want to quote directly from you, september 18, one week after the attacks on this podium. you're saying that, quote, based on the information, you did say initial information, and that includes all information, we saw no evidence to back up claims by others that this was a prelanded or premeditate aid tack. that we saw evidence that it was sparked by the reaction to this video. and then you said, and that is what we know thus far based on the evidence, concrete evidence, not supposition, concrete evidence we have thus far. so my question is -- >> i think that's pretty good. based on the evidence we had at the time, the initial evidence, the facts that we had that were concrete as opposed to speculation about it and so -- >> my question is, what was the concrete evidence you had that said it was the video, not a preplanned attack? >> i would take you back to the time and the events that were happening in karachi and elsewhere, i believe it was karachi, but other -- eye could

he, certainry -- cairo, certainly. i would note that subsequent reporting on notable news organizations have shown that participants in the attack said they were inspired in part by the protest outside of cairo. so if it wasn't directly because of the video, it was because of protests in cairo because of the video. all of this is to say that these were assessments made by the intelligence community based on the information they had and based on -- they should obviously have spoken on this themselves, but based on what we knew was happening around the world, not just in libya. and, again, i thank you for reading that because i think it represents the effort that we made, that ambassador rice made and others made, to make clear that these were initial assessments and that they were subject to change as more clarity became available on what exactly happened, who was responsible, who they were affiliated with or not, and why four americans died as a result. >> but you're saying that

because of a protest elsewhere, in a place like cairo, which is an absolute fact, that that was concrete evidence that in fact the video -- >> again, i didn't make these assessments. the intelligence community did and the intelligence community has spokesen to this and -- spoken to that again based on what we, the u.s. government, knew at the time and the assessments with we had at the time, we made those assessments available to the american people through you. as more information became available, we provided that to you. on the fundamental issue of dish mean, you know, we talked about militants, the president talked about an act of terror. the narrowness of the charge here has no bearing on what happened or what the reaction was, the response was, or on the essential work that's being undertaken to this day to bring to justice those responsible.

>> secretary clinton said today in talking about the spreading jihadist threat, quote, we have to recognize the global movement, we can kill leaders but until we have established strong democratic institutions, until we do a better job of communicating our values and building relationships we're going to be faced with this. so what are the president's plans specifically to better communicate the united states -- [inaudible] and build relationships and where more broadly does this fall in the list of priorities in his agenda? in his inaugural address he seemed to largely focus on domestic issues. >> it has been a priority of this president in his first term and will continue to be a priority. i think we have seen in the last four years, in the last two years, in particular, you know, enormous change in the region. historic change in the region. and that change is continuing. and the affects of cha thing continue. -- effects that have change continue and it is absolutely in

our interest as a nation to engage with those in the region who believe that there's a better future for the people of the middle east and north africa if they pursue democracy than the alternative, than the -- if they embrace the tir ran cal ideology of al qaeda -- tyrannical ideology of al qaeda, for example. this is ethical change and it is unfolding and has been unfolding over the course of this administration and in the last two years in particular and it will continue to unfold. but it is an enormous focus as a security challenge and as a challenge to the expression of and -- of our values around the world. and the president has spoken to this many times. >> what specifically is his

plan? >> his plan for -- >> his plan for building relationships, better communicating the united states' values? >> i'm not sure what you're looking for. he has spoken of this many times and he will continue with that effort and we engage with countries, governments, movements that espouse greater democracy, greater tolerance, greater -- a greater embrace of economic freedom as well as civil rights and we will continue to do that. and we will also do it in a way that focuses on the president's primary responsibility when it comes to foreign policy which is the safety and security of the united states and the american people. >> do you have a reaction to congressman paul ryan saying that the president needs a strongman argument in his inaugural address when he talked about the fact that the united states is not a nation of takers. congressman ryan said that the president misconstrued what he meant, what ryan meant when he

used that term? a nation of takers? >> the president mentioned chairman ryan, but i mean, that phrase has been used by a number of republicans including paul ryan. the president's point was that these programs, social security and medicare in particular, have been enormously valuable to seniors in our country and to providing the security that has allowed for stronger economic growth and stronger job creation and a stronger middle class. i mean, the facts and figures on what the plight of the -- polite of the nation's seniors -- plight of the nation's seniors was before social security is well known. the insecurity that seniors face or would face if medicare were voucherized and the costs were shifted to them, if they had a

limited amount of money to spend on health care and the rest was up to them, i think would not be good for the country. the president doesn't believe it's good for the country. >> one more on syria, that's a bipartisan call urging the president to expedite delivery of u.s. humanitarian assistance to the syrian people coming from senator ayad. what is the president's reaction? will he do that? >> the president would say, as i will say now, that the united states is the single largest bilateral donor of humanitarian assistance to the syrian people. in coordination with our international humanitarian partners we are supporting and complimenting the generous efforts of turkey, jordan, lebanon and iraq whose governments and communities are hosting refugees fleeing the violence in sir yafment the united states is providing -- syria. the united states is providing $210 million to help millions of people inside syria as well as to assist nearly 670,000 syrians who have fled beyond that country's borders.

the american people are funding the provision of life, saving food, medical care, blankets and essential winter supplies which are reaching children, women and men in all 14 governances inside syria and as well as refugees in neighboring countries. let's be clear, the responsibility for the humanitarian crisis in syria lies with bashir al-assad and his regime. every day the regime's hold on power weakens, territory slips from its grasp and the opposition becomes more capable and confidence -- confident. the syrians are taking back their dignity and the united states will continue to lead international efforts to assist the syrian people and to provide the kind of humanitarian aid that we have thus far. >> i have a foreign policy question but first i wanted to ask, for the administration's response, the house has now passed the three-month suspension of the u.s. debt ceiling. what's your comments?

>> it's the same as it was yesterday. the president believes that we need to, as a country, do the responsible thing and without drama or delay pay our bills. meet our commitments. ideally we would extend a raise -- or raise the debt ceiling for a long period of time so that this is not a question, so that the uncertainty that has surrounded this issue of late because of the political strategy that house republicans have taken will be removed or would be removed. it is certainly important to recognize that the bill that passed the house today, the position that the house republicans took beginning late last week represents a fundamental change from a strategy that they pursued up until this point which is to try to link the debt ceiling to an ideological agenda of spending

cuts in which the choice presented to the american people was, either face dramatic cuts in social security or medicare or we'll default on our obligations and wreck the american economy and throw the financial system into crisis. not much of a choice. we are glad to see that that strategy is not being pursued anymore. so this is a welcome development. and as i said yesterday, the president will not stand in the way of this bill becoming law. his interest is in resolving our budget and fiscal issues for the long-term and he looks forward to engaging with congress in building on the accomplishments he's achieved so far in deficit reduction, the $2.5 trillion achieved so far in a balanced way. >> so now that the votes are in from israel, i'm wondering if you would give us some comment on the president's reaction to netanyahu's re-election?

not only his re-election but the weakened state of his re-rex, what do you think both the out-- re-election, what you think both the outcome and the back drop of the outcome might mean for u.s.-israel policy going forward, for the middle east peace process, for dealing with iran, and although you have not announced any policy readout, has the president spoken with mr. netanyahu and has the president spoken with latif? >> first of all, we congratulate the israeli people on their election. and as i said yesterday and it remains true today, i do not want to get ahead of the israeli political process. elections are a stage in a process. in israel. and the final results themselves are not yet in and i'm not going to speculate on the government formation process which i think goes to some of the questions that you asked. i think it's very likely the president will be speaking with prime minister netanyahu. i don't have a call to read out to you at this time. but when appropriate i'm sure

that will call take place. in terms of the peace process, i would say the same thing i said yesterday, which our views are clear. we believe that what needs to take place is direct negotiations between the two parties that address the final status issues. and that result in a two-state solution that provides a sovereignty that the palestinian people deserve and the security that the israeli people and israel deserves. >> do you know whether the president is likely to -- >> i don't have anything more on potential calls the president might make. >> any comment on -- just on the impact -- [inaudible] >> just being a commentator on another country's political process at this time. >> so, regardless of what

government emerges or who's going to lead that government, yesterday was a much larger turnout of moderate israeli voters who went to the polls and voted for parties that at least in principle support the two-state solution. president obama often says elections matter. he's talked about it because of his own re-election in terms of specific policies. what does the administration believe that israeli voters were saying yesterday? in terms what have they want -- where they want their country to go? >> i don't want to get ahead of the process and i think as you know, in particular, given your expertise in this field, the process is not complete. in israel. what is important is that we recognize that israelis should be congratulated on their election. on their democracy.

what also should be recognized is that our relationship with israel and our unshakable commitment to israel's security will continue regardless and our position on the peace process and our pursuit of peace will not change no matter the result of the government formation process. as for the fact this these elections have on that -- effect these elections have on, that i wouldn't speculate. we're going to deal with, you know, the process itself, with the government and press forward on what we firmly believe is a process that has as its goal a result that is good for the palestinians and for the israelis. >> the administration often says that there's not been a white

house with a close strategic relationship with israel in this one. but it's also no secret that sometimes the relationship with prime minister netanyahu has been a little contentious. how important is personality and the personal types between leaders as compared to the strategic sense and do you expect now that the elections here and in israel have taken place there might be a little bit of leeway for two leaders to have a slight different relationship? >> i would answer by pointing out that no leader has met more often with or spent more time on the phone with president obama than prime minister netanyahu. that relationship is strong and t.s.a. relationship that allows for a free and open discussion of ideas and positions.

and that's good. for u.s.-israeli relations. i think that the underlying foundation of the relationship is very important to understanding, you know, the approach that this administration takes and the approach the prior administrations have taken and that is that we are committed to israel's security and we have demonstrated that commitment in the actions that we've taken, that the president has taken, in his first term and that will not change. bill and then susan. >> i want to take one for the team and ask -- [inaudible] question. [laughter] did the president know she was lip syncing and does he care? >> a i've not had the discussion with him. i'm not sure i understand the variety and contradictory report it's on the matter and i would refer you to jasic or pick.

>> but even the marine band say they were thinking it, they were not actually playing the star-spangled banner. doesn't that -- >> my -- what i know about this i know from what i've read and shockingly it has not all been consistent. but my understanding and this was as i recall from the inauguration in 2009 is that as a precaution, recordings are made. but i actually have no idea, you know, what's true and what's not about happened here and i don't think it's particularly important issue. to address from this podium here. >> he hasn't said whether or not he realized she was not actually performing? >> i have not had that discussion with him. >> did you expect she was going to sing live? >> i'm glad you guys are foe kiss -- focused on the important issues of the day here. again, i would point to you history here that includes what happened in 2009. there are issues -- again, i

have no idea what happened in this inauguration or not, as i think everyone knows in 2009 it was so cold that yo yo ma could not play. as powerful as this office is we don't control the weather and as many issues as we deal with here, we industrial to choose what we don't deal with and this is one of those issues. yes, in the back. >> two questions. one on benghazi and then on climate change. the first one, so we haven't seen really a tick tock of what's happened and what the president was doing that night and how he was apprised of the developments that were going on in benghazi. such like we saw during the o.b.l. raid. we've seen a lot of information about what happened that night. but we didn't see like, what you said earlier too, it seemed like you were saying that the president was giving panetta carte blanche to do whatever -- >> the president spoke to the

secretary of defense who was in the oval office when the president learned about initial reports about the attack. to do everything possible to ensure that assistance, whatever assistance could be provided was provided and that action was taken to secure our facilities in the region and around the world. because as you know, there was unrest taking place in a variety of places at the time. so, i think we've been very clear about that. and as is the case with developments of this kind, he is routinely updated by his national security team. and that was certainly the case here. >> so we've heard and we've recorded that the special forces guys could not get into benghazi to do any real good in time. was that decision made by pa net

o'or who -- panetta or who made that decision? >> there was a lot of false reporting and i would point you to the accountability review board on this issue that i think addresses it very directly. speculation about this has been often wrong and the a.r.b. report makes that clear. >> on the domestic issue, on climate change. there's legislation today and he is saying that he hopes the president is -- he's calling on the president to support this on climate change. the legislation would put some penalties on fossil fuel companies that admit carbon and i'm wondering, is this something the president could get behind? or is this just him going off on his own? is this something that -- is there any legislation that the white house and the president can get behind on climate change? >> that's an enorse mousely

speculative question. is there any legislation? i mean, again, you haven't even described the legislation that senator sanders may have put forward. i haven't seen it. >> his press release described it saying he's going to put penalties -- >> what i can tell you is that we have not proposed and have no intention of proposing a carbon tax. beyond that i haven't seen the legislation that you've talked about. thank you all very much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> senator john kerry has been nominated by president obama to be the next secretary of state. his confirmation hear something tomorrow. he'll be introduced by current secretary of state hillary

clinton. that hearing tomorrow here on c-span beginning at 10:00 a.m. eastern. well, the house today passed a bill that would suspend the debt limit for the next four months through the middle of may. it passed by a vote of 285-144. coming up next, a part of the floor debate from the house today. mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. camp: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in strong support of h.r. 325, the no budget, no pay act of 2013. this legislation directs members of the house and senate to adopt a budget resolution by april 15, 2013. if either body does not -- the speaker pro tempore: this house is not in order. please remove all conversations. the gentleman is recognized. mr. camp: thank you, mr. speaker. either body does not adopt a budget resolution by april 15, 2013, members of that body will

have their pay withheld until they pass a budget. it's simple. no budget, no pay. the american people understand that they don't get paid if they don't do their job, and neither should members of congress. in addition to ensure the complete and timely payment of obligations of the u.s. government, this legislation allows treasury to issue debt between the date of enactment and may 18, 2013. however, treasury may only issue enough debt necessary to pay bills coming due before may 18. i want to be perfectly clear on this point. this bill does not allow treasury to run up an unlimited amount of debt between now and may 18. the debt authorized under this bill must be tied to bills coming due during that time frame, and further on may 19, a new debt limit is automatically established. so that's what this bill does. the larger question is why are we even talking about the debt and debt limit.

our nation's debt is not just some abstract number. it has a direct impact on american families. during the president's fiscal commission, the simpson-bowles commission, we heard nonpartisan testimony that when the debt is this large in comparison to the economy, it costs the country the equivalent of about one million jobs. think about that. if washington got its debt and spending under control, one million more americans will be working today. and if that wasn't sobering enough, fitch ratings recently warned that the failure to come up with a plan for reducing our debt would likely still result in a downgrade of the u.s. credit rating. a lower credit rating is sure to mean higher interest rate. that means higher credit card rates, higher student loans, certainly higher mortgage payments. despite these warnings, the democrat-controlled senate hasn't produced a budget in 1,300 days, four years without

a budget. how can we begin to get our debt under control when democrats won't even produce a budget this bill is the first step in forcing democrats to put forward a budget so we can start holding washington accountable for its out of control spending. every day, american families have to make decisions abtheir household finances. they have to adjust their spending to cover a whole host of things, groceries, student loan payments, braces for children, and replacement for that aging refrigerator. of course they can't buy everything they want. every day they have to make tough choices. it's time for congress, the house, and the senate to make some tough choices. to be honest, mr. speaker, this isn't a tough choice where i come from. where i grew up if you didn't do your job, you didn't get paid. it's time for congress to start living with the same facts of life everyone else in america has to live with. i support the no budget new york pay act because it brings back accountability and common sense to washington and i urge

my colleagues to join me in passing this bill. thank you, mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman, mr. levin, is recognized. mr. levin: i yield myself such time as i may consume. this republican bill is not a change in policy. it's a change in tactics. house republicans continue to play with economic fire. they're playing political games with the debt ceiling. and that undermines certainty. yesterday, economist simon johnson of m.i.t. testified before our committee saying that a short-term increase would only extend uncertainty he said, i quote, you will continue to undermine the private sector, you will continue to delay investment and reduce employment relative to what it would be otherwise. let's for a second remember history. the last time the house

republicans played political games with the debt ceiling, august 20 11, our economy produced the lowest job growth in three years. during that two-month period, the dow jones plummeted 2,000 points including one of its worst single day drops in history, 635 points on, on august 8. s&p downgrade the u.s. credit rating for the first time in history. leading republicans in june, 2011, criticized the notion of a short-term debt ceiling increase as providing a lack of certainty. the majority leader said, i quote, we feel very strongly that one of the reasons we continue to see an ailing economy is that people have very little confidence, have very little senchity in terms of where we are headed, end of quote. and our ways and means chairman echoed that feeling only days later, saying about the

prospect of a short-term debt ceiling increase, in quote, it does not give you certainty. this bill does not give certainty but uncertainty. the action we took new year's day to avoid the fiscal cliff brought our total deficit reduction over the past two years to $2.5 trillion. what's more, it set the stage for future further balanced agreements that include both spending cuts and new revenue. we should proceed with that effort, not plunge into further uncertainty. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from smch recognized. mr. camp: i yield myself 15 seconds to say, standard and poor's downgraded the u.s. on

august 5 after the solution was passed. therefore it reflects that what we agreed to falls short to stabilize the medium-term debt die nam ins. with that i yield two minutes to a distinguished member of the ways and means committee, the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. ryan. mr. ryan: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, recognized for two minutes. mr. ryan: you know what we know with certainty? we know with certainty a debt crisis is coming to america. this is not a question of if, it's a question of when. what is a debt crisis? it means we can't keep living beyond our means. we can't keep borrowing from our children's future this, we, our generation of americans, we are being selfish. we are taking from the next

generation, their future. we have a moral obligation to fix that and if we have a debt crisis, those who get hurt the first and worst are those who need government the most. our seniors. the poor. the people live thoke safety net. that's who gets hurt in a debt crisis. we have an obligation to do something about this. and so what does this bill do? this bill simply says, congress, do your job. when i grew up in wisconsin if you had a job, and you did the work, then you got paid. if you didn't do the work, you didn't get paid. it's that simple. here's the point. we have a law. it's tchailed budget act. it requires that congress passes a budget. by april 15. all we're saying is congress, follow the law. do your work. budget.

and the reason for this extension is so that we can have the debate we need to have. it's been a one-sided debate. the house of representatives has passed budgets. the other body, the senate, hasn't passed a budget for almost four years. we owe our constituents more than that. we owe them solutions. and when both parties put their solutions on the table, then we can have a good, clear debate about how to solve the problem. because the problem is not going away, no matter how much we can wish it away. the problem of debt, of deficit, of a debt crisis is here. we owe it to our children and grandchildren, we owe it to our constituents, to fix this this isn't a republican or a democrat thing. this is a math thing. and the math is vicious. and it's hurting our country. and it's hurting the next generation. and it's hurting our economy. and the sooner we can solve this problem, the better off

everybody is going to be. that's why this needs to pass. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i yield two minutes to the ranking member of the budget committee, mr. van hollen. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. van hollen: look, this resolution contains some good news but lots of bad news for the american people. the good news is that our congressional republican colleagues have finally recognized that america must pay its bills and meet its financial obligations without condition. the bad news is they only want to do that for three months. just read the title. to ensure the complete and timely pame of the obligations of the united states government, until may 19. now if it's a good idea to maintain the obligations of the u.s. government between now and may 19, it sure is a good idea to make sure we meet the

obligations of the united states government beyond that by setting up what amounts to another fiscal cliff, all our republican colleagues are doing is prolonging economic uncertainty. for the last two years, we have heard from our republican colleagues, economic uncertainty is bad for the economy. guess what? it is. yet that's exactly what you're doing. another big dose of economic uncertainty. this is a political effort simply to increase their negotiating strategy, leverage three months from now, at the expense of jobs in the economy and the american people. how do we know it's at the expense of jobs and the economy? because we saw what happened in august 20 11, as the ranking member of the ways and means committee said, worst month in terms of jobs. we lost, we saw our credit rating downgraded. and both g.a.o. and the bipartisan policy center have set a cost -- said it cost the taxpayers over $1 billion. that's all we're doing right

now. another dose of uncertainty. to my friend and colleague the chairman of the budget committee, yes, we need budgets. yes we need to reduce our long-term deficits. that's never been the issue the issue is how. we believe we've got to make trget targeted cuts and reforms but we also believe we need to eliminate a lot of tax breaks and loopholes that we heard from our colleagues about in order to reduce the deficit in a balanced way. if you don't do that, you sock it to everybody else in the country. let's pass a balanced approach to reducing our deficit and not one that takes it out of the expenditure. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan. mr. camp: i would just say we have already increased the debt limit over $5 trillion in the obama administration, almost a 50% inkeys in the debt limit. let me also say we have had many, several, temporary short-term increases in the debt limit before there's been a more permanent long-term increase in 1987, 1990, 1996.

it is not unprecedented, the action we're going to be taking today. with that, i yield two minutes to the distinguished member of the ways and means committee, the gentleman from washington state, mr. reichert. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. reichert: thank you, mr. speaker. let me see if i can simplify this a little bit. so there's three branches of government. two branches of the government have responsibility for the budget. and there's three piece to those two branches. the white house is one, the administration needs to produce a budget. the house republicans need to produce a budget. the senate democrats need to produce a budget. for the system to work. well, the president produced his budget. even though we may not agree with it on this side of the aisle. it's increased our deficit from $ 1.4 trillion too $16.4 trillion. some people at home may not grasp the on kept of $16

trillion. let's just talk about $1 trillion. if we spent $1 a second, mr. speaker, how long would it take us to spend that $1 trillion? 36,000 years. we are 16 of those in debt. 16 of those in debt. it's time for the senate to do their job. now even though admiral mullen has said our greatest national security threat is our deficit, and even though the senate has raised their right hand and said, and took an oath, to protect and defend this great nation of ours and defend the constitution, they still have not acted. they still have not done their job. to protect and defend. to uphold the oath that they took. even though admiral mullen has said, and i repeat, the

national security is a great risk because of our $16 trillion deficit. if you own a home and off $50 thourblings a year job -- job and you're making your payments on a car and a house and you're thinking things are going just fine. but you know, i want to add to that. so i'm going to buy a new big screen tv, put a pool table in, buy two more cars, put a pool in the back. i'm going to fix the place up, all of a sudden you realize, i can't pay for it. so you have some options available. you have to raise revenue you go out, get two or three more jobs, or your wife goes to work or your kids have to go to work. and that still doesn't meet your responsibilities. so you have to stop spending. right? stop spending. the only other option now is, get rid of some of the stuff you can't pay for because even though you might have stopped spending and taken another job and raised revenue, now you've got to get rid of stuff.

get rid of the pool table -- mr. camp: i yield the gentleman 15 seconds. mr. reichert: we've got to start cutting things. we need to stop spending. we need to stop spending in this country. the senate needs to do their job. no budget, no pay. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expire. the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i yield one minute to the gentleman from new york, mr. rangel. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. rangel: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. rangel: i don't think anyone challenges the fact that we have to stop overspending. you can't simplify it and say, stop spending. the problem is that the debt ceiling has nothing to do with the full faith and credit of money that's already spent. and that we have plenty of time to talk about taxes and spending, if we talk about concurrent resolutions, if we

were talking about sequestration. if what you're saying is that if there's a budget that i have to vote yes or no on, and one budget says that one way to close and reduce the deficit is to go after the people that are the poorest, the most sick and the oldest and call that entitlement cutbacks, and if i don't vote for that, then it means that the government is not going to pay me, i can go home very easily and tell them a bad budget is worse than no budget and once again, we are holding the spending cuts that a will the -- a lot of people want that should be negotiated hostage. perhaps we've not a three-month -- we've got a three-month reprieve. but the fact remains this is holding up the president and our country from getting on with what we should do, when the impact, fiscal impact of this on our country throughout

the world is dangerous. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. camp: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield one minute to a distinguished member of the ways and means committee, the gentleman from new york, mr. reed. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. reed: i stand and rise today in support of this no budget, no pay proposal. this is why we ran for office. this is why i came to washington, d.c., to stand for a vision that's going to attack the debt crisis that is upon us today. the debt crisis that threatens our children and our grandchildren for generations if we do not get our fiscal house in order in washington, d.c. it is time to put up the visions of the house republicans versus the senate democrats as to what the proposals to move forward to solve this debt crisis are. we owe it to the american people to be open and honest with hardworking taxpayers that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to stand for

budgets that are all about tax increases, so be it. i believe there's a better way and that better way will be in a house republican budget that does the responsible thing and lays out a vision of growth and opportunity for generations to deal with this unsustainable debt crisis that is now upon us. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i yield one minute to another member of our committee, mr. mcdermott from washington. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. mcdermott: mr. speaker, here we are with another republican straw man out here, a bill set up to fail. the senate has not yet adopted its rules. we don't know where the filibuster is going to be used or anything, and you're saying they have to do something by a fixed date. now, we've had fixed dates in here as long as i've been here,

and we never make them. but what we are creating is continuous chaos in the economic world globally, and what you're doing this is simplely say -- simply saying, let's have a big kurfuffle. we'll all bring up the same piece of paper and read it and give the same speech and we will continue to retard the ability of the american economy to move forward. recannot send the message worldwide that the united states has lost the ability to make decisions. to pay its debts. if that's the message you want the world to get, that's what this is about today. i'm voting against this. bring back one that lifts the debt limit and gets it out of the way so we can get down to the cost cutting.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan. mr. camp: i yield one minute to a distinguished member of the ways and means committee, the gentlewoman from tennessee, mrs. black. the speaker pro tempore: gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. mrs. black: thank you. as a charter member of the fixed congress now caucus and early supporter of the no budget, no pay, i am very exciting that this legislation will be voted on in the house in just a little bit. we on the house budget committee work hard to pass a responsible budget each year, but the democrat-controlled senate refuses to do the same. in fact, it has been nearly four years since the senate has passed a budget, and since that time, the government has racked up annual deficits exceeding $1 trillion a year and in total more than $5 trillion in four years. if we say on this current path -- stay on this current path of record deficits, big government and unfunded entitlement programs, greece's presence

will be america's future. -- greece's present will be america's future. the debt crisis is not something we want for our children and grandchildren. accountability in the halls of congress cannot wait. today, we will make an important step in the house to force the senate to either do its job or face the consequences. it's simple. no budget, no pay. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i now yield one minute to the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. neal. the speaker pro tempore: thank you, mr. neal. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. neal: our job here is to educate the public, not to entertain them. they ran up deficits on the republican side of $6 trillion during an eight-year period of time. $2.3 trillion worth of tax cuts and two wars, and now they come back today with a glitzy proposal, no work, no pay.

institutional memory. you remember term limits. remember those in favor say aye line-item veto, the constitutional theorists, they got rid of that. and how about they were going to pass a balanced budget amendment to the constitution? my dad used to say, at least jesse james had enough personal respect to wear a mask. the people that put us into this situation are now quibbling about raising the debt ceiling when they almost broke the country with the proposals that they offered all of those years and never once did they ask president bush. not once did they deny president bush on those proposals. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan. mr. camp: i yield one minute to a distinguished member of the ways and means committee, the gentleman from illinois, mr. ross come. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one

minute. mr. ross come: thank you, mr. speaker -- mr. rosk up: thank you, mr. speaker -- mr. roskum: thank you, mr. speaker. it is common sense to require people if they're getting compensation to do their job. it's been four years. it's been since rod blagojevich, the governor of illinois, was indicted since the united states budget -- the united states senate has passed a budget. and now we have an opportunity to put pressure on the other body and that is to do their work. we don't do ourselves, we don't do our children, we don't do the taxpayers any favor by creating a climate that says folks don't have to do their work. we don't get to a solution or a remedy unless we pass budgets. this is an opportunity to get on record, to put the other body out into open fields so we can have a discussion and move

this country on a pathway that makes sense. we ought to pass this and pass it quickly. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i now yield one minute to mr. becerra, a member of our committee, and chairman of our caucus. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. becerra: you buy a house, you pay your mortgage. well, at least in this bill for three or four months. you want your kids to go to college, you take out a student loan, and you'll tell the bank, i'll pay for three, four months and we'll talk again. you buy a car, you tell the dealer, love to buy the beautiful car. and you tell the dealer, let's talk in three, four months about what we'll do with the debt. this simply creates more uncertainty, another fiscal cliff and yet another economic case of sabotage against the american public. the party that voted for tax cuts for the wealthy, two wars

and a massive new prescription drug benefit program and put all the costs of that on a credit card does believe it's important now to honor those obligations, pay those bills and maintain the full faith and credit of the united states of america. now with this new congress we have an opportunity to find common ground, not more conflict. instead, our republican colleagues are threatening three strikes against the middle class, against small businesses and the u.s. economy. the u.s. default, government shutdown and sequestration. let's start talking about what really matters to americans. the biggest deficit we face, a jobs deficit. let's get to work putting americans back to work. let's be problem solvers, not problem makers. it's time to get america moving again. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp. mr. camp: at this time, mr. speaker, i yield one minute to a distinguished member of the ways and means committee, the gentleman from indiana, mr. young.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. young: thank you, mr. chairman, mr. speaker. as i straffle in my south central indiana -- as i travel in my south central indiana district, i hear two simple requests from my constituents. first, they want us to get our spending and our debt under control. secondarily, they want us to work together collectively, republicans and democrats, to get that important job done. that's why i support this proposed legislation, h.r. 325. now, the bill strikes me as imminently reasonable because it not only satisfies those simple requests, it asks us to do our job. we are required under law as has been said before to pass a budget. the house is required to do it and the senate is required to do it. the senate has not done it for four years. now, a budget is essentially spending priorities. it lays out your vision for the future, whatever solutions you may or may not have are revealed in a budget. it's not easy to put together a budget. sometimes it's unpopular but it is our duty. so i say no budget, no pay.

i am tired of the senate being dilatory in its responsibilities. they need to pass a budget. that's why i urge my colleagues to support this legislation. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i yield one member to -- i yield one minute to a member of our committee, mr. blumenauer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. blumenauer: we continue to talk past one another. the issue is not passing a budget or passing a budget. the issue is whether or not we are going to take fundamental steps to reform the way that we spend money around here. my good friend, mr. ryan, and the republican budget that they passed on a couple of occasions, would have required trillions of dollars in additional budget -- in additional debt ceiling increase and wouldn't be balanced for several decades. let's stop playing games with

the form and let's sit down and work on the things we agree upon. i think the american public would support us if we took out tens of billions of dollars of unnecessary spending for redundant nuclear weapons, to reform the scandal that is the crop insurance program that in cents people to plant land that they should not plant and drives up losses. let's accelerate health care reform, like we're doing in oregon, that would save over $1 trillion if it were applied nationally. let's get down and do it. act, don't debate. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan. mr. camp: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield one minute to a distinguished member of the ways and means committee, the gentleman from nebraska, mr. smith. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. smith: mr. speaker, i rise today in support of h.r. 325. the bill is an important step toward getting our fiscal house in order because it requires the senate to finally pass a budget, something american

families and businesses do each and every day. the federal government is currently in the process of accumulating its fifth consecutive $is trillion deficit. we need a -- $ trillion deficit. we need a -- $1 trillion deficit. we need a serious plan to address the deficit, however, the senate has gone nearly four years without passing an annual budget. taking a year by year approach and addressing only discretionary spending will not solve our long-term spending problem. we must take a comprehensive long-term approach to the federal budget, a comprehensive approach to spending must address the long-term solvency issues on entitlements such as medicare, medicaid and social security. without reform, spending will remain on an unsustainable path while the medicare and social security trust funds are emptied before the majority of americans currently are paying in even qualified to become beneficiaries of those programs. today's legislation will allow us to work with the senate in achieving this long-term deficit solution we know would

meet the needs of americans. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i yield one minute to the gentleman from new jersey, a member of our committee, mr. pascrell. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. pascrell: mr. speaker, the 14th amendment of the constitution states, if i may paraphrase, the public debt of the united states shall not be questioned. in other words, we don't even have the power really in that section 4 of that amendment. you take a look at it and read it what our objectives are rather than bring to debate year after year whether we should raise the debt limit. we ought to do our jobs. it will be foolish if people around the world began to wonder once again whether or not the congress will give the president the ability to pay the debts that we racked up.

both sides voted for many of this. the fact is that the united states, as the president said, is not a deadbeat nation. we will pay our obligations, both to our bondholders and to seniors and veterans and middle class. so i'm glad my colleagues on the other side have edged slightly away from the precipice of default. they are still leaving themselves room to backtrack if they don't get what they want. and just the fact that the conference chairperson has said, if we have to shut down the government to make sure president obama understands that, we're serious, that's almost treason, according to the 14th amendment. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan. mr. camp: thank you. at this time i yield one minute to a distinguished member from illinois, mr. davis. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. davis: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in support of h.r. 325, base opped a simple principle

if congress doesn't pass a budget, congress doesn't get paid. we cannot start the process of controlling spending in this country without a budget. we also cannot ask hard working taxpayers to manage their own budget when elected leaders fail to do sthosme house has passed a budget each of the last two years. the other body must do theirs if we are going to control the out of control spending. for years the senate has gotten away without passing a budget but they have found time to pass laws that increase spending. s that terrible way to run a government and i support this bill which will pay for bills already obligated. we have to stop the political gamesmanship occurring here in this town and work together to find common sense solutions to cut spending and find savings in our budget. i look forward to passing this bill that will finally hold congress accountable and begin put -- putting america on a

debt repayment plan and stop future generation from paying for the mistakes of the past. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: can i ask how much time is remaining on both sides. the speaker pro tempore: yes, you may. this secret from michigan has nine and a half minutes, the other secret from michigan has five and a half minutes and the gentleman -- five and a quarter for mr. camp. mr. levin? mr. levin: i yield one minute to the gentleman not from michigan but from the distinguished state of wisconsin, mr. kind. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized for one minute. mr. kind: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding me time. mr. speaker, the legislation before us today solves no problems. in fact it just min tains the great uncertainty hanging over the u.s. and global economy. whether or not we are going to jeopardize the full faith and credit of the united states of america in de-- and default on

our nation's financial obligations for the first time in our nation's history. i do not for the life of me understand why anyone would jeopardize that safe haven that's been established in this country. we all know what needs to be done to get our fiscal house in order. both parties have to lock arms and jump into the icy water and make digs together. every bipartisan commission that's been formed to address the issue has come up with the same solution, there has to be additional revenue and spending cuts to make this work. but my friends on the other side have had two national campaigns promising to restore funds to the medicare program and increase defense spend big over $2 trillion over the next 10 years. that's $2.7 trillion additional in the two largest spending program. we do need an honest conversation about this.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. camp: i yield myself 15 seconds, i ask unanimous consent to place in the record a letter from the executive office of the president that saysering and i quote, the administration would not oppose a short-term solution to the debt limit and looks forward to continuing to work with both the house and senate to increase certainty and stability for the economy. end quote. the speaker pro tempore: hearing no objection, so ordered. mr. camp: i reserve the plans of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman, mr. levin is recognized. mr. levin: i yield one minute to another member of our committee, mr. crowley. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. crowley: i thank the gentleman for yielding me this minute. the budget control act of 2011 sets the budget in the next 10 years. it says it in the name, the budget control act. we have a budget many place for 10 years. you don't like what you voted for now, i understand that, that's problematic. but this bill before us today is not a serious proposal by the house republicans but

rather a gimmick. even "the wall street journal" called ate depimic. this bill does not provide certainty to the business community, the international markets or job creators here in the u.s. that the just government -- that the u.s. government will pay its bills. it sets up another g.o.p.-manufactured crisis in four months, putting the economy and the credit worthiness of our nation at risk. instead of no cliffs, my republican colleagues are creating a new cliff. the american people sent us here to work, not to play more games. but my republican colleagues are failing america again. only 38 of my republican colleagues voted for the hurricane sandy relief. only 85 of their members voted to provide tax cuts to the middle class. when it comes to pushing our country over the brink, they're all in. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. camp: thank you, mr. speaker. at this time i yield one minute to the distinguished gentleman from ohio, the speaker of the

house. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. bayne -- the speaker: let me thank my colleagues for yielding and ask my colleagues to vote for the no budget new york pay act. the premise here is simple. it says that there should be no long-term increase in the debt limit until there's a long-term plan to deal with the fiscal crisis that faces our country. every hard working taxpayer in america knows that they have to do a budget. every hard working taxpayer understands that you expect continue to spend money you don't have. we are committed to continue to do a budget every year. and if you think about this, it's not just that we've done a budget the last two years that addresses our fiscal crisis. even when the democrats had control in the two years before that you all did a budget. and yet, for four years, nearly four year the united states senate has not done a budget. and so this bill before us is real simple.

it says congress if you don't do a budget you don't get paid. i have no doubt that we're going to do our work. weefer committed to doing a budget and a 10-year plan to solve our budget crisis and to balance our budget. frankly, i think it's time for the senate and the white house to produce a budget that will balance over the next 10 years. you know, most americans would look up and go, wait a minute, why do they need 10 years to plans the budget. but we the with baby boomers retiring and the fact it wasn't prepared for, it's going to take more time. but my goodness, we ought to be able to balance the tpwhunlt the next 10 years. balancing the budget in the next 10 years means we save the future for our kids and brand kids and it means we strengthen social security and medicare and medicaid that can't continue to exist in their current form without some kind of controls. it's time for congress to get serious thabt and this is the

first step in an effort to bring real fiscal responsibility to washington. it's real simple. no budget, no pay. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman, mr. levin, from michigan is recognized. mr. levin: i yield two and a half minutes to our whip, mr. hoyer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i want to say to the speaker before he leaves the floor, i believe the speaker wants to get to a responsible agreement between our parties, between the house and the nat and between the congress and the president on getting to a a responsible way to reduce the budget. this bill is not that vehicle. this bill in my view is an irresponsible waste of our time. this bill does not do what republicans said they wanted to do over and over and over again. than is give a sense of

certainty to our economy, to our people, and to the international community. this bill kicks the can down the road for 90 days. one more time. this bill simply puts a leverage point, another 90 days away, we can continue to royal -- this bill is a gimmick. it was cooked up a few miles from here when frankly the majority party said, we're in trouble. the people don't like us. things aren't going well. how do we fix it? well they came up with this gimmick. and the gimmick was, you don't vote the way we want you to vote, we won't pay you. now very frankly, the problem with that sprems that we are elected by 435 districts who

have different perspectives. and my view is the overwhelming majority of us come here, work very hard on behalf of our constituents. but your constituents may not like what my constituents want. but that doesn't mean you have the right to say you're not going to get paid, mr. hoyer because we don't like what you're working for. if that's our premise we are holding hostage policy in an undemocratic dictatorial fax. not only that, this 90-day kicking the can down the road has not go -- has got to stop. we need to come to reality that it's not the debt limit that's the problem, and the president is right. the president has nothing to do with the debt limit. only this house and this senate can spend money. the president can't spend a nickel. only this house and only this senate. can i have one --

mr. levin: 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hoyer: the other problem with this,ing of, is we're not going to spend until 12 thoirt today discussing this critically important issue. we treat it like just a throwaway. i can't discuss the substance of this issue in the time allotted to me nor can any other member and when i had a magic one minute it was a little better, when i was majority leader. i miss that very much. but i urge both of us, both republicans and democrats, to come to grips with making the hard decisions, not the political demagoguery decisions that this bill protect -- projects. let us sit down and come to grips with the fact that yes, we need more revenues and yes we need to restrain spending and yes we need to restrain entitlements. i say that as the leader of my party. mr. levin: i yield 30 second. mr. hoyer: but i say you will

not get there with gimmicks, you will not get there with pretense you will not get there with irresponsibility and kick the can down the road. i understand what you've done. you've taken your most controversial leverage point and put it at the end rather than the beginning of the process. but you still have the c.r. and you still have the sequester. and swreel to debate those. what we ought to be doing is extending this debt limit for one to four or six years, or eliminating it altogether. when you spend money it has nothing to do with the debt limit and everything to do with the actions of the congress. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. camp: i yield to the gentleman, mr. fitzpatrick, for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. fitzpatrick: this is not a gimmick for the past going on

four years now, our friends in the senate have failed in their most basic act of governance, to pass a budget. the people i represent back in bucks county and montgomery county, pennsylvania, they wouldn't survive without being able to operate on a budget. the school districts, municipalities, boroughs, even this commonwealth of pennsylvania, all required to pass a budget that balances on time. i'm proud to have over the course of the past year been advocating consistently for no budget new york pay in this house. the hard working men and women that i represent wouldn't be paid if they didn't show up and they didn't do their job or get their job done on time this place should operate no differently. i call on all our members of the house, all my colleagues, support no budget new york pay in these difficult and troubled times. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i yield one minute to the gentleman from illinois, mr. davis. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. davis: i ask unanimous

consent to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. davis: thank you, mr. chairman. no budget, no pay. no budget, no responsibility. no stability, no stability, no confidence. no confidence, no ability to borrow. to attract investors. h.r. 325 is a gimmick. tts a gimmick. i've always been taught that if you have a debt, pay it. delaying it drives up interest rates and is not the best approach to convincing investors and lenders that we have the ability to pay. if you convince people that you don't have the ability to pay, it is more likely that they're not going to let you have what you want. that's what i've been taught. they do not want fwimics. they want solutions. and i yield back the balance of my time.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expire. the gentleman from michigan. mr. camp: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin congress spowled you identify -- mr. levin: could you identify how much time we have left? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman, mr. levin, has three minutes. the gentleman, mr. camp, has three minutes also. mr. levin: i yield one minute to the congresswoman from california, ms. sanchez. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. . ms. sanchez: i'd like to thank my colleagues on the other size of the aisle, recognizing we can't disregard our obligations to seniors, veterans, and active military is a first big step. but this legislation doesn't create the long-term certainty that our economy needs. the small business owners that i talked to tell me they need certainty before they can invest in their businesses and hire more employees. instead of providing small businesses the long-term certainty they need, the republican-led house is just

playing games. they are stringing the american public along so they can set up yet another dramatic showdown that only hurts our recovery. the mere mention of default sends markets plummeting, dries up hiring, and pulls the rug out of consumer confidence. businesses in my district and all across the country can't afford more tantrums threatening default and government shutdown. it's our job to find a solution and give businesses the market and american families the long-term certainty they deserve. this legislation isn't long-term solution. it's yet more irresponsible gamesmanship. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. is the other gentleman from michigan reserve? mr. ryan: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. levin: i now yield one minute to the gentleman from maryland. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute.

mr. delaney: there is more cash in u.s. corporations than ever in our country's history. they have three things they can do, raise their dividends, buy back stock, or make investments. to make investments which require a long-term time horizon, there needs to be certainty. if we care about american families, if we want our coppingses to make -- corporations to make investments that will create jobs, we'll have certainty on a debt ceiling for a reasonable period of time and we'll have fiscal certainty in this country in a balanced way, by balanced i mean additional revenues. that's what will create certainty in this country. that's what will get u.s. corporations investing. if they invest we create jobs and that helps working families. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. ryan: i roaf. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves.

the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. levin: how much time do we have? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan has one minute remaining. mr. levin: i yield myself the balance of the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. ryan: this isn't no budget, no pay. this is three months, no certainty. you know, it's been said it kicks the can down the road. a road paved with uncertainty. mr. levin: what this does in a few words it keeps the sort of default hanging over the heads of this congress and over the heads of the american economy and the american people. it's unwise to do that. we tried that the summer of 2011. the republicans more than

flirted with it. and they flirted dangerously. now they are pulling back, but instead of meeting this head-on, they essentially bring a bill here that presumes that it moves us ahead. when it moves us into more and more uncertainty. this is unwise. politically they think smart policy for the american people very dumb. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. camp: i yield myself the balance of the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. camp: the gentleman, my friend from michigan, talked about certainty, yes there is certainty because the senate majority leader just announced they'll take up this bill and pass it. i think every american understands that we must get our debt and deficits under control. we have over $5 trillion in

increases in deficits. and the obama administration, almost a 50% increase in our national debt. and let me just say that we have had many short-term increases in the debt limit over time. what was business as usual when the democrats were in the majority, we had nine short-term debt increases. three of them in 1987. six of them in 1990. before longer, more permanent debt limit increases were made. so what is business as usual for the democrats, they now call flirting dangerously for the republicans. i think it is very important we move forward on increasing the debt limit for this limited period of time. while we can then address the issues that will help affect our long-term debt and deficits. including the sequester and the continuing resolution. when the long-term debt of the united states was lowered to a double-a plus rating in 2011, on

august 5, they said that the downgrade, which was after the budget control act was passed, they said the downgrade reflected their opinion that the fiscal consolidation plan that congress and the administration recently agreed, meaning the budget control act, falls short of what in our view would be necessary to stabilize the government, medium term debt dynamics. meaning, we didn't do enough to address the drivers of our debt, long-term debt. we must do that. i would urge my colleagues to support h.r. 325, to support the no budget, no pay act. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back.

the the gentlewoman from michigan is recognized. mrs. miller: thank you, mr. speaker. i move to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 325. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mrs. miller: madam speaker, i ask -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for 10 minutes. mrs. miller: thank you. i yield myself such time as i may consume. madam speaker, i rise today in strong support of h.r. 325, the no budget, no pay act. the budget act of 1974 requires each house of congress to pass a budget each year by april 15. it's important of course because the budget we pass is our blueprint, literally, for how we are going to spend the hard-earned tax dollars that the american people send here to washington to run our nation. today we are in a situation where the united states senate has not passed a budget in

nearly four full years, leaving the american people with no idea on how the senate intends to deal with the fiscal crises that is facing our federal government. in the time since the senate last passed a budget, the federal government has experienced deficits of over $1 trillion each and every year, and we have added more than $5 trillion to our national debt. obviously this is a very serious fiscal crises and the american people are demanding answers. this legislation will allow us room to begin working on a solution that will put our nation on a much more sound financial footing. this bill will extend our nation's borrowing authority for 90 days to give each house of congress, the house and senate, the needed time to do what they are legally required to do which is to pass a budget to show the american people how we intend to deal with the many challenges that we face. but while giving congress time to do its work, it also has a caveat, a very important caveat

associated with it. that says if we don't do what we are required to do by law, that we will not be paid. simply put, no budget, no pay. this idea actually came, madam speaker, from previous bipartisan efforts to bring fiscal responsibility to washington. and now the president has indicated that if it reaches his desk, he will sign it. he he does not oppose it. as well there have been very promising indications coming out of the united states senate from many democratic members that they will also step up after four long years of inaction and put forward a budget. i believe that this can be the impetus today for us to work together to finally address our fiscal challenges. today we can send that very strong message to the american people with a bipartisan vote to show that we are willing to put our paychecks on the line to meet these challenges. some are concerned about whether

or not this legislation is constitutional because of the 27th amendment restriction that the pay of members of congress cannot be varied. that is really the operative phrase of that amendment. varied. that it can neither be raised or reduced until another election has taken place. and this bill, madam speaker, was carefully crafted to comply, to comply with the requirement of the 27th amendment. so this is how it will work. if either the house or the senate does not pass a budget by april 15, the deadline, then beginning on april 16 the pay for members of that chamber will be placed into an escrow account and will only be paid when that chamber, either the house or senate, has passed a budget or when we reach the end of the 113th congress. the amount that members are paid will not be reduced, nor will it be raised. so we stay in strict compliance

with the terms of the 27th amendment. there is no requirement in the 27th amendment which states that members have to be paid weekly or biweekly or monthly or bimonthly, what have you, only that the pay they receive will not vary. will not vary. now, some have suggested that the escrow account into which the member pay would be deposited should bear interest so that that could then as well be paid to the members. this cannot happen because that would actually cause member pay to increase, of course. it would then vary their pay. which would not be in compliance with the strict terms of the 27th amendment. so i am extremely hopeful, madam speaker, that we will successfully conclude our work on a timely basis here in the house, and i hope that this additional provision as well encourages the senate to also complete our important work and pass a budget. and what we are suggesting

certainly is not unreasonable. i'll tell you, i come from southeast michigan, and one thing can i tell you what is true about the people i'm honored to serve, they get up every single day, every morning, and work hard all day, every day, and they simply to not understand how congress can fail to do our job for almost four years, no budget out of the senate for almost four years, yet suffer no consequences. the american people are demanding that their members of congress deal effectively with the chal lection we face. our -- challenges we face. our problems are real. it's time for real solutions or real consequences. the concept, again, very simple. no budget, no pay. when times are tight, you balance your checkbook, checkbook, when you run out of money, you stop spending. when your credit card is maxed out, you cut it up or get a plan together to pay it off. if you don't do your job, you don't get paid. these are the principles, madam speaker, that americans live by and we certainly should be no

exception. you urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from michigan reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. >> madam speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> this bill is not a serious attempt to address the debt issue in this in a way dealing with the difficult choices we need to make. we have within here before, we know what happens when we govern with this kick the can down the road mentality. the effect again gwen is the constitutionality this bill is also dangerously unclear. mr. brady: i was not on the floor last week when my colleagues red the constitution. they may have reached the 27th amendment. i am not a constitutional attorney. i am not an attorney in any way. i make no apologies for that. no law varying the compensation for the service of the senators or representatives shall take

effect until election of representatives shall have intervened. varying is the, again, as my friend did say, the tune -- opportune word. if you are not getting a paycheck in montreal, and you wait for 18 months -- in a month and you wait for 18 months, that's varying. it could be in my opinion a constitutional problem, but be that as it may, do i commend the majority that congress must pay its bills. that raising the debt ceiling isn't about spending more money, it's about paying for bills we already incurred. there is a bipartisan acknowledgement how difficult and serious the challenges before us have become, however, this proposal is just another attempt to yet again put the discussion off for another day. madam speaker, i came and saw the sign, no budget, no pay. probably should say no budget, delayed pay. but it sounds better when you say no budget, no pay. that means we may not be getting paid.

we'll get made. it will be delayed. every year in this house we do pass a budget, although it's a budget i can't vote for, it's a budget that hurts the middle class, working class, the wannabe working class, and also hurts the american people safety net. we know again this year we'll pass that budget. so our friends on the other side of the aisle are putting up a no budget, no pay quite well-known they will probably pass their budget and we will probably get paid. on another thought, why not, as my good friend, mr. doyle from pittsburgh, has said to me, why not no gun control, no pay? why not into immigration reform, no pay? why not no disclose act, no pay? madam speaker, in my opinion, and i think a lot of my colleagues' opinion, it's a gimmick bill. no budget, no pay has no teeth. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania reserves. the gentlewoman from michigan is recognized. mrs. miller: madam speaker, before i yield time to my good

colleague here, a couple of comments in regard to what my ranking member has said from the committee. why not no gun control, no pay, or using some other examples? i would just point out that none of those are required by law. as passing a budget is required by law. also there was some comment again about the significance of the 27th amendment, and i would just say quickly a statement from david ripken jr. and lee casey, two constitutional attorneys that served in former administrations who say the bill passes muster. their comment, it does not vary members' compensation, instead holding it in escrow until such time that a budget is passed or congress comes to an end. it's just one other quote, from another constitutional attorney, actually a gentleman who rallied to support to pass the 27th amendment. i will probably point out in 199 it was my state of michigan that put it over the 3/4 threshold.

he said, nowhere in such a proposal he said new york where do i see a violation of the terms, such a proposal doesn't vary the amount to congress, it delays disbursement of that dollar amount. at this time i'm honor and privileged to yield two minutes to the gentleman from mississippi, mr. harper a distinguished member of the committee on house administration. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. harper: ski unanimous consent to enter into the record a statement from david rive ken jr. and lee case -- ripken jr. and lee casey who are private practice attorneys with experience in administrative law. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. harper: the no budget, no pay bill was written specifically to ensure it complies with the 27th amendment to the constitution. it does not vary the amount of compensation and is therefore

constitutional. it only changes when representatives and senators are paid if they fail to adopt a budget resolution as required by law. currently, representatives are paid monthly and senators are paid twice a month this bill simply says if the house does not adopt a budget resolution that members of that house instead get paid at the end of that term of congress. in 1789, james madison, when he introduced the 27th amendment, spoke of preventing changes in compensation from being for the benefit of those determining them. the clear purpose of the amendment, which as we know was not ratified until 1992, was to prevent members from drawing higher salary fless public treasury without giving voters an opportunity to speak on that decision. this bill does not benefit members at the expense of taxpayers and it is consistent with the provis -- provisions of the 27th amendment.

with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. brady: it's my pleasure to recognize peter welch of vermont for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from vermont is recognized for one minute. mr. welch: i thank the gentleman. we have sharp differences in this body on taxes, on spending, on the best path forward to resolve our fiscal situation. these are legitimate debate bus there should be no daylight between us on meeting our obligation to pay our bills there should be no linkage between the obligation to pay our bills and getting our way on contentious issues in dispute among us. this is just like a person with a credit card who buys a refrigerator, at the end of the month when the credit card bill arrives, they have used the refrigerator, they see they're above the credit limit. they don't tear up the credit card they stiff their credit card company.

we have to pay our bills. that is not negotiable. a year ago august when we went through this spectacle work this linkage, we suffered our first downgrade in the history of this country. that's outrageous and it with ill cost taxpayers money. if we mess around with the debt ceiling, creating uncertainty as to whether this is a political tool and gimmick, a 1% increase in rates will cost the taxpayers $1 trillion. i yield pack. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mrs. miller: the reason we have such an enormous amount of national debt, such a number that you can't even get your mind around it anymore, $16 trillion is because we have a big component of that is because we have not been following the law and having the senate pass a budget as we have done in this house. and i would say, having been very proud to participate and sit on the platform watching the president of the united states in his inaugural getting

sworn in, just the other day, one of the things he said is that we have to address our debt and we have to work together and today the white house is saying they will not oppose this bill. so i am asking my colleagues to work together in a bipartisan way, passing a budget is the foundation for us to begin to get a handle on this out of control spending and the deficit and a portion of today's house floor debate that increases the debt ceiling until may 19, the vote was 285-144. it also withholds house and senate salaries after april 15 if a budget hasn't been passed. the chamber is out the rest of the week due to democrats holding a retreat. holding a retreat. follow the